1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ALICIA M. GENNA, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:22-cv-01429-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ) ) ORDER 6 TRANS UNION, LLC, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Motion to Stay the Action Pending Likely Transfer by 10 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“MTS”), (ECF No. 35), filed by Defendant Trans 11 Union, LLC (“TransUnion”). Plaintiff Alicia M. Genna (“Plaintiff”) filed a Response, (ECF 12 No. 37), and TransUnion filed a Reply, (ECF No. 38). 13 For the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES TransUnion’s MTS. 14 I. BACKGROUND 15 Plaintiff filed this action on September 2, 2022, alleging that TransUnion, a consumer 16 reporting agency, violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (“FCRA”) by falsely reporting 17 incorrect, inaccurate, or misleading information on its credit reports after Plaintiff’s debts had 18 been discharged in bankruptcy.1 (Compl. ¶¶ 11–12, 45–59, ECF No. 1). On November 10, 19 2022, TransUnion filed a Motion (the “MDL Motion”) to Transfer Actions with the Judicial 20 Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “Panel”), requesting that the Panel transfer and assign to 21 the Northern District of Illinois all pending and subsequently filed actions alleging that 22 TransUnion generated a consumer report containing incorrect information about accounts 23

24 1 Plaintiff also alleged FCRA violations against several co-Defendants, (see generally Compl.), some of which 25 have been terminated, (see Notices of Voluntary Dismissal, ECF Nos. 17, 24, 34). The impetus for TransUnion’s MTS, its pending MDL Motion, concerns only Defendant TransUnion, and none of the other Defendants joined the instant MTS. 1 discharged in bankruptcy. (MTS 2:5–11). TransUnion now moves to stay the action until the 2 Panel decides whether the action will be transferred to Illinois. (See MTS, ECF No. 35). 3 II. LEGAL STANDARD 4 The Court has the discretion “to stay proceedings in its own court.” Lockyer v. Mirant 5 Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2005) (citing Landis v. North American Co.,

(1936)). When deciding whether to issue a stay, the court must weigh competing 7 interests including: (1) “the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay;” 8 (2) “the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward;” and 9 (3) “the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of 10 issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.” CMAX, Inc. 11 v. Hall,

(9th Cir. 1962) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254–55) (the “Landis 12 factors”). “The proponent of a stay bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 13

(1997) (citing Landis,

). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 TransUnion moves to stay the entire action, (MTS 1:21–2:1), and Plaintiff opposes a 16 stay, (see generally Resp., ECF No. 37).2 The Court notes at the outset that “a majority of 17 courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while 18 a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel because of the judicial 19 resources that are conserved,” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co.,

(C.D. Cal. 20 1997), including courts in this District, see, e.g., Hernandez v. ASNI, Inc., No. 2:15-cv-00078- 21 LDG,

, at *1 (D. Nev. June 24, 2015); Flores v. Merck & Co., No. 3:21-cv- 22 00166-ART-CLB,

, at *1 (D. Nev. June 13, 2022). But an action “is not

23

24 2 In her Response, Plaintiff argues that TransUnion’s MTS fails procedurally because TransUnion did not 25 comply with the meet-and-confer guidelines set forth in this District’s Local Rules. LR 26-6(c). (Resp. 2:16–23). Although Plaintiff correctly notes that if granted, the MTS would also stay discovery proceedings, the instant motion is not a discovery motion subject to LR 26. Accordingly, the Court decides the MTS on the merits. 1 automatically stayed upon the filing of the MDL Motion,” and it remains within the Court’s 2 discretion whether to grant a stay. Foley v. Bristol–Myers Squibb Co., No. 2:16-cv-01596- 3 APG-VCF,

, at *2 (D. Nev. Sept. 9, 2016). 4 Upon review of the Landis factors, the Court does not find the requested stay warranted. 5 TransUnion argues that its requested stay best serves the interest of judicial economy, (MTS 6 6:25–8:18), and would not prejudice Plaintiff, (id. 8:19–9:20). Specifically, TransUnion 7 contends that a “brief, limited delay is plainly outweighed by the benefits both parties and the 8 courts would receive from coordinated discovery and motion practice in the MDL proceeding.” 9 (Id. 8:27–9:2). TransUnion further argues that it will suffer hardship if the requested stay is not 10 granted. (Id. 9:11–10:2). 11 The Court disagrees with TransUnion. First, even if for a short duration, a stay of the 12 entire case is hardly limited. TransUnion is not the only defendant in this case; although 13 Plaintiff has voluntarily dismissed her claims against several of TransUnion’s co-Defendants, at 14 least one co-Defendant remains active. Plaintiff, co-Defendants, and the Court need not halt all 15 proceedings because one defendant may have the claims against it consolidated and transferred 16 to multidistrict litigation. Second, a stay of the entire case is unnecessary. If a danger of 17 inconsistent rulings or duplicative discovery arises, TransUnion may file a narrowly tailored 18 motion to stay discovery. Third, the Panel will hear oral arguments on the MDL Motion later 19 this month. (MDL No. 3058, ECF No. 59) (setting panel hearing for January 26, 2023). 20 Although some courts have found that a short timeframe for an MDL hearing militates in favor 21 of staying proceedings pending resolution of an MDL motion, see Hernandez,

3932415, at *1, the imminent hearing also demonstrates little need for a stay. The Panel will

23 likely resolve the MDL Motion before TransUnion is subjected to much of the prejudice it 24 claims it will face in this case. The Court finds that TransUnion has failed to establish its need 25 for a stay of the entire case. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the TransUnion’s MTS. 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that TransUnion’s Motion to Stay the Action Pending 3 Likely Transfer by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, (ECF No. 35), is DENIED. 4 DATED this _1_2___ day of January, 2023. 5 6 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25